Main Home | 2009 Fall Report Home | Cluster Profiles | Surveys | Talking Points
Cluster Profiles
Analysis about the fiscal conditions of Washington's 281 cities was done by dividing cities into clusters based on similar economic characteristics. After separating cities into two groups based on 2000 U.S. Census defined metro areas and non-metro areas, cities were initially divided based on the results of a statistical analysis.
Fourteen different city clusters were identified, each with their own name and number. Clusters one through six contain cities located in non-metro areas as defined by the 2000 U.S. Census. Clusters seven through 14 include cities located in metro areas. Characteristics of the 14 clusters are explained below.
More about the cluster methodology.
Alphabetical list of all cities and respective cluster membership.
Non-Metro Area Cities |
|
|
These large cities in Washington’s more rural areas offer the greatest economic opportunities to their residents. However, responding cities indicate the local economy worsened in the past year and they are less able to meet financial needs in 2009 compared to four years ago. Examples: Centralia, Pullman |
Natural Resources/Light Industrial Hubs – Cluster 4 These communities, relying on natural resources and/or manufacturing for economic wellbeing, entered tough economic times long ago. In 2004, more than 80 percent reported being less able to meet financial needs compared to five years ago. Only 27 percent report the same for 2009 compared to four years ago. Examples: Coulee City, Montesano |
|
Rural Commercial Centers – Cluster 2 These cities tend to have substantially more commercial activity than their non-metro neighbors. Although many will re-open their budgets before the end of the year to deal with reduced revenues, only half indicate local economic conditions have worsened in the past year. Examples: East Wenatchee, Shelton |
Varying in character from quaint towns to small cities, these communities have relatively low property values and commercial activity, but experienced moderate growth over the past decade. More than 80 percent indicate they will be less likely to meet financial needs in 2010. Examples: South Cle Elum, North Bonneville |
|
Compared to other city clusters, these tourist-based cities have not witnessed economic decline to the same degree. While the majority report being less able to meet financial needs now than in the past (and envision the same for the future), three-quarters have not seen local economic conditions worsen. Examples: Chelan, Port Townsend |
Collectively, these communities have the smallest median operating budgets and populations of any other city cluster. More than half of these officials report the local economy has worsened and more than half will re-open their budget or decreased expenditures due to a reduction in revenues before the end of the year. Examples: Palouse, Pe Ell |
Metro Area Cities |
|
|
These cities are the state’s largest population centers. City officials report experiencing economic decline in the past year and all anticipate they will be less able to meet fiscal needs in 2010. Examples: Tacoma, Vancouver |
Characteristics in these communities vary. Most cities experienced high population growth in recent years, putting pressure on municipal services. These city officials report deteriorated economic conditions within the past year; however, only two thirds indicate being less able to meet financial needs now compared to four years ago. Examples: Redmond, Issaquah |
|
Major Commercial Centers – Cluster 13 Ranging in population, these cities are some of the state’s strongest retail centers. Nearly all indicate the local economy has worsened in the past year, requiring the city to re-open the budget or decrease expenditures due to decreased revenues by the end of 2009. Examples: Lynnwood, Tukwila |
High Income Residential – Cluster 9 The cities within this cluster are distinctly residential, with neighborhoods that include the homes of some of the state’s wealthiest residents. Whereas city officials from these communities have mixed reports about the extent to which the local economy has changed, all anticipate being less able to meet financial needs in the next four years. Examples: Clyde Hill, Hunts Point |
|
Medium Commercial Centers – Cluster 12 Many of the cities in this group are defined by moderate retail and manufacturing activity. All responding city officials report being less able to meet needs in 2009 than four years ago. More than half anticipate things getting worse next year and nearly 80 percent anticipate greater decline in the ability to meet financial needs in 2013. Examples: Federal Way, Kennewick |
These suburban communities are prominent neighbors of large urban centers and most experienced a great deal of growth over the past decade. More than 90 percent of these cities report their local economic conditions have worsened, and more than 80 percent report they are less likely to meet financial needs now than four years ago. Examples: Camas, Maple Valley |
|
Small Commercial Centers – Cluster 11 Most of these cities maintain a small town feel, but also generate a significant amount of retail/commercial activity. Because of this reliance on retail activity, more than 80 percent indicate their economy has worsened in the past year. Examples: Sumner, Yelm |
Many of these communities display a rural character, but are in close proximity to urban centers. Similar to cluster 4, 90 percent reported they were less able to meet financial needs in 2004 compared to five years ago. Only 44 percent report the same about 2009 compared to four years ago. Examples: Grandview, Steilacoom |